Computers, smartboards, and the like are just farking distractions. Even when used right their benefit is still less than what you could achieve by taking the tech money and using it to hire good teachers and reduce class size. Unless you are teaching children programming, which is a skill that would be useful, why do we need computers or internet access in our schools?

Ringo: You can learn from books!Grandfather: You can, can you? Pahh! Sheeps' heads! You could learn more by gettin' out there and living!Ringo: Out where?Grandfather: Any old where! But not our little Richard. Oh, no. When you're not thumpin' them pagan skins you're tormenting your eyes with that rubbish.Ringo: Books are good.Grandfather: *Parading's* better.Ringo: Parading?Grandfather: [nods eagerly] Parading the streets! Trailing your coat! Bowling along! LIVING!Ringo: Well, I am living.Grandfather: You? Living? When was the last time you gave a girl a pink-edged daisy? When did you last embarrass a sheila with your cool, appraising stare?Ringo: You're a bit old for that sort of chat, aren't you?Grandfather: Well at least I've got a backlog of memories! All you've got is - THAT BOOK!

Arthur Jumbles:Unless you are teaching children programming, which is a skill that would be useful, why do we need computers or internet access in our schools?

I agree, mostly, but internet access would at least allow the schools to compete to some small degree with the constant bombardment kids get from the media, from all the popular entertainments -- music, radio, television, movies -- all slickly produced and far more stimulating than anything any teacher, however well-paid, can produce.

We need to teach our kids the difference between slickness and substance.

What, no hero tag? There are no valid studies showing that computers increase learning. They have no place in a classroom. In a lab, absolutely, but not a classroom. What would you rather have: 1) your child's teacher teaching fundamentals or 2) you child's teacher texting a URL for an on-line lesson and then going for a cup of coffee?

Printed books were first developed in the 16th century as a non interactive format long term storage device. They have been being progressively replaced by interactive electronic formats which last five minutes.

so from the 16th to the late 20th the progression was linear or was there a big spike near the end?

and by the "last five minutes" part he means the stuff breaks or was he referring to lotus notes?

Arthur Jumbles [TotalFark] Quote 2009-11-22 02:42:21 AMComputers, smartboards, and the like are just farking distractions. Even when used right their benefit is still less than what you could achieve by taking the tech money and using it to hire good teachers and reduce class size. Unless you are teaching children programming, which is a skill that would be useful, why do we need computers or internet access in our schools?

THIS, this, this, this, a thousand times this! My school district did not hire any new teachers this year, we are over budget, but they got new unnecessary text books (old ones were perfectly good) in nearly every subject in elementary. And they put a goddamn expensive Smart-board in every single class, an astronomical sum of money. All you need are two of them in each school and keep them in the library and let teachers who use them check them out.

I NEVER, and I repeat EVER see anyone use them. They are expensive places to hang posters.

Computers, smartboards, and the like are just farking distractions. Even when used right their benefit is still less than what you could achieve by taking the tech money and using it to hire good teachers and reduce class size. Unless you are teaching children programming, which is a skill that would be useful, why do we need computers or internet access in our schools?

There is a third issue that most people miss in this debate. I agree that throwing technology at the problem is not the solution. However, it is what most people think is what is happening. A school's job is to prepare a child for the world. Nothing is gained by banning the tools that are used in the real world. A teacher that can use a chalk board, can only use a chalk board. A teacher that has access to books, internet, smart boards AND chalk can use the proper tool at the proper time.

Picture a classroom in your mind. That picture is the problem. The US school system has never gone through a major overhaul. We are still using techniques that are 200 years old. You have to realize that every industry in the world has reinvented itself multiple times. The entertainment industry isn't the same as when you were a child. Transportation is different, medicine is different. You wouldn't go to a dentist who used 200 year old techniques. It's time to change what we teach and when we teach.

Our current system is based on memorization of facts. Now that we have Google, the world doesn't need memorizers. We need THINKERS. And it's my job to teach the teachers, parents and administrators in my state that teaching THINKING rather than memorization is not only possible, but very easy and in fact fun.

Industry has caught on quickly. Intel has a 40 hour course, with free tools called "Teaching Thinking with Technology". http://www.intel.com/education Google has tools and techniques for teachers, http://www.google.com/educator. Verizon has pooled together nearly 50,000 free resources from the Smithsonian, National Geographic, The Kennedy Center, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, and others into a program called "Thinkfinity". http://thinkfinity.org Oracle has a free educational program to teach collaboration called ThinkQuest, SAS has a thousands of lesson plans and multi media resources that teach critical thinking and problem solving called SAS Curriculum Pathways, www.sascurriculumpathways.com.

Without technology in our classrooms, I can't get these thousands of free resources in. Replace textbooks (when appropriate) with netbooks. Change the time of the school day so that we don't have children unattended after school. Change the school year so we aren't following an out of date calendar. Give me time to retrain the teachers that we already have. Some need to go, but 70% are eager to learn the new techniques.

The online lessons for my college math classes helped me a lot. If I had a problem with a certain type of equation the help button was right there within reach and I could interactively work through the problem until I understood and could solve that type of equation on my own. I didn't even use the book to study, just to go through and make sure the online lessons were covering everything I was supposed to cover from the book and I still got A's on all of the tests. These were month long summer courses too, so everything had to be covered quickly, I just thought it was easier and faster for me to study online.

Then again I'm not a child, but I don't see how the guy in the article is saying that newer technology like computers has NO place in the classroom when learning things. That just sounds like a comment from someone that doesn't understand the newfangled devices and doesn't want to figure it out so thinks they're inferior.I can see how a lot of children would enjoy interactive computer lessons more than reading out of a book, therefore choose to pay more attention to the lessons.

Arthur Jumbles:Unless you are teaching children programming, which is a skill that would be useful, why do we need computers or internet access in our schools?

The internet (at a kiosk, at least) is useful for google alone, provided the kids are actually taught HOW to look stuff up and judge the quality of the hits (which, if they're smart, will usually very quickly LEAD them to some good books).

As for programming, absolutely it would be wonderful to teach it, for the algorithmic thinking skills alone. For that they don't need state of the art computers, either. In fact, keeping the programming (or hardware-hacking) computer separate from the nice computer they have to keep 100% functional all the time would be a good start.

It's long bothered me that "computer skills" type classes don't teach programming, they're all about using Microsoft Word and playing video games.

There are some quite nice online learning sites with real learning going on, the benefit there (for math and the like) are things like movable graphs and endless random generation of problems so you can quiz endlessly on things you need to practice. But to make a GOOD one takes a lot of effort on the part of the author, it's not just slapping up some cheesy multiple choice thing with a cute animated graphic. That's the part most places don't seem to understand.

Same goes for the older "TV will save us!" schemes. There were lots of great animations showing things moving around for say, chemical reactions, the orbitals and all that, but those are hard to make.

What's common to all of it is that people assume that flashy technological delivery means you don't need to worry about the content. Hell, it happens in books too, people think if it has nice color printing and pictures in it the book is great, content be damned.

One of the tragic secrets of books and reading is that, between the eyes and the brain, a LOT of children have a hard time with it. These often easily correctable problems convince a lot of children that reading is unpleasant, and so they never adopt it as a lifestyle.

Before even learning basic words, and each and every year thereafter, children need to be evaluated for vision, Dyslexia, Dysgraphia (inability to write by hand), Dyscalculia (inability to learn mathematics), Scotopic sensitivity or Irlen syndrome, and ADHD. Most people have only heard of the first two and ADHD.

Importantly, many of these things are not "on or off", but happen in degrees, and may change over time.

Then add to that the need for children to psychologically adapt to reading, such as "one hour reading times" in the same place and at the same time every day.

Arthur Jumbles:Computers, smartboards, and the like are just farking distractions. Even when used right their benefit is still less than what you could achieve by taking the tech money and using it to hire good teachers and reduce class size. Unless you are teaching children programming, which is a skill that would be useful, why do we need computers or internet access in our schools?

Who said you can't have technology, great teachers, and small classes?

Also, we need internet access because it helps teach. My teachers can show Schoolhouse Rock videos they bought on iTunes in class, taking far less time than getting a TV, etc.

Don't completely ditch either one, but if you want to surround kids with one of the two, surround them with books.

I think 90% of the time my friends and I spent on computers in school before ninth grade was wasted...but the other 10% was a big deal.

A teacher showed me how to write a simple BASIC program on an old Apple computer in elementary school. I didn't understand everything that was going on, but it taught me that I could "give computers the ability to do something that they didn't know how to do before". This idea lay dormant for a few years, but I found the technology lab in middle school, it awoke.

Overall, the time I spent with books was more productive and more educational, but I would hate to have missed the few worthwhile experiences that depended on computers being present.

Nick1693:Also, we need internet access because it helps teach. My teachers can show Schoolhouse Rock videos they bought on iTunes in class, taking far less time than getting a TV, etc.

Or they could, I don't know, TEACH perhaps? I see no compelling reason whatsoever for teachers to be showing schoolhouse rock videos in class. Spoon-feeding children everything in flashy, animated three minute chunks is one of the reasons nobody has any semblance of an attention span nowadays.

It has generally been my experience that there is a negative correlation between the amount of multimedia materials used in a class and the overall quality of the course. Bad teachers use it as a crutch and good teachers don't need to bother with it in the first place. Obviously special courses like film studies or graphic arts are an exception, but that should go without saying.

zcat:Don't completely ditch either one, but if you want to surround kids with one of the two, surround them with books.

I think 90% of the time my friends and I spent on computers in school before ninth grade was wasted...but the other 10% was a big deal.

A teacher showed me how to write a simple BASIC program on an old Apple computer in elementary school. I didn't understand everything that was going on, but it taught me that I could "give computers the ability to do something that they didn't know how to do before". This idea lay dormant for a few years, but I found the technology lab in middle school, it awoke.

Overall, the time I spent with books was more productive and more educational, but I would hate to have missed the few worthwhile experiences that depended on computers being present.

I think there's a big difference between having computers available in labs in the school, and centering all classroom activities around computers. Computers are an essential part of life, so naturally children should be exposed to them in school. But when you have every teacher relying on PowerPoint slides and youtube videos for every lesson, you invite laziness and ineptitude and introduce unnecessary distractions. On top of that, you have schools that issue laptops to students or hold every class in computer labs. I can not think of a more effective way to get students to pay attention to everything but the course material.